actually, i'd argue it's why CTP should just be attached to your driver's license and charged by licensed vehicle category.Kenzo wrote:Just because you pay the CTP, doesn't exclude you from letting someone else use your other car / bicycle.
This is why you need to pay for all insurable vehicles.
Bye bye AGF?
- jules21
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:14 pm
- Location: deep in the pain cave
Re: Bye bye AGF?
Postby jules21 » Fri Feb 03, 2012 2:19 pm
- Kenzo
- Posts: 1680
- Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:13 am
- Location: Daisy Hill / Brisbane, Southside FTW
- Contact:
Re: Bye bye AGF?
Postby Kenzo » Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:43 pm
- jules21
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:14 pm
- Location: deep in the pain cave
Re: Bye bye AGF?
Postby jules21 » Fri Feb 03, 2012 3:47 pm
i don't see it. it's the person who is being insured. it's got nothing to do with the car really.Kenzo wrote:That would be unfair to the one car family with four drivers - parents and two teenagers.
- Kenzo
- Posts: 1680
- Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:13 am
- Location: Daisy Hill / Brisbane, Southside FTW
- Contact:
Re: Bye bye AGF?
Postby Kenzo » Fri Feb 03, 2012 4:07 pm
- Mulger bill
- Super Mod
- Posts: 29060
- Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
- Location: Sunbury Vic
Re: Bye bye AGF?
Postby Mulger bill » Fri Feb 03, 2012 4:43 pm
Agree wholeheartedly with this, the vehicle by itself is not inherently dangerous. It's the nut holding the wheel that causes the problems.jules21 wrote:actually, i'd argue it's why CTP should just be attached to your driver's license and charged by licensed vehicle category.Kenzo wrote:Just because you pay the CTP, doesn't exclude you from letting someone else use your other car / bicycle.
This is why you need to pay for all insurable vehicles.
London Boy 29/12/2011
- drubie
- Posts: 4714
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:12 am
- Location: New England
- Contact:
Re: Bye bye AGF?
Postby drubie » Wed Feb 08, 2012 8:49 pm
It's the practical considerations of attaching insurance to the license. It doesn't make a lick of sense if you think about it for 5 minutes.Mulger bill wrote:Agree wholeheartedly with this, the vehicle by itself is not inherently dangerous. It's the nut holding the wheel that causes the problems.jules21 wrote:actually, i'd argue it's why CTP should just be attached to your driver's license and charged by licensed vehicle category.Kenzo wrote:Just because you pay the CTP, doesn't exclude you from letting someone else use your other car / bicycle.
This is why you need to pay for all insurable vehicles.
Singlee car familes suddenly bear the brunt of two 3rd party insurance for one car (not everyone can drive it at once). Those guys with multiple cars crying about multiple 3rd party charges, well boo hoo big boy if you can't afford to run those smoke boxes start riding a bike.
I dunno why the AGF is even slightly involved in the rego debate - it's one thing to appear receptive in order to appease the car lobby, it's another thing to entertain ridiculous ideas because it gives them a credence far beyond their credibility. the AGF should have just shot it down blank in my view.
but really, that's rubbish. We get none of it because the choices are illusory.
-
- Posts: 198
- Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 2:11 am
Re: Bye bye AGF?
Postby lturner » Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:16 pm
I have to disagree completely with this. Cars are inherently the dangerous element, not people. That same "nut" is capable of far less damage on foot or on a bike, than in a vehicle that weighs 2 tonnes and can move at 100km/h or more.Mulger bill wrote:Agree wholeheartedly with this, the vehicle by itself is not inherently dangerous. It's the nut holding the wheel that causes the problems.jules21 wrote:actually, i'd argue it's why CTP should just be attached to your driver's license and charged by licensed vehicle category.Kenzo wrote:Just because you pay the CTP, doesn't exclude you from letting someone else use your other car / bicycle.
This is why you need to pay for all insurable vehicles.
Attaching CTP to a driver's licence is crazy. I have a licence but I don't own a car, and only drive a handful of times per year. Should I pay the same insurance as someone who drives every day? Do I pose the same risk or likelihood of causing damage to people or property? No way.
The thing that is potentially dangerous is the act of driving, not simply being a licence holder. There is no perfect system, but levying rego and CTP insurance onto the car is by far the closest approximation of attaching costs to the danger posed.
- jules21
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:14 pm
- Location: deep in the pain cave
Re: Bye bye AGF?
Postby jules21 » Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:37 pm
good point. i also own a car (with my wife), but we hardly drive. charging us full CTP on the car is also unfair.lturner wrote: Attaching CTP to a driver's licence is crazy. I have a licence but I don't own a car, and only drive a handful of times per year. Should I pay the same insurance as someone who drives every day? Do I pose the same risk or likelihood of causing damage to people or property? No way.
i agree with this too. the best way to charge is by distance driven. the kiwis actually do this (not for CTP necessarily, but some of their road charges are by odometer reading). a more precise means would be by GPS tracking, but people won't cop that.lturner wrote:The thing that is potentially dangerous is the act of driving
-
- Posts: 198
- Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 2:11 am
Re: Bye bye AGF?
Postby lturner » Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:28 pm
Yes if there was some way of charging CPT by distance travelled, that would be fair enough. Actually there are some kinds of rego you can get if you only drive on weekends for example, with reduced costs.jules21 wrote:good point. i also own a car (with my wife), but we hardly drive. charging us full CTP on the car is also unfair.lturner wrote: Attaching CTP to a driver's licence is crazy. I have a licence but I don't own a car, and only drive a handful of times per year. Should I pay the same insurance as someone who drives every day? Do I pose the same risk or likelihood of causing damage to people or property? No way.i agree with this too. the best way to charge is by distance driven. the kiwis actually do this (not for CTP necessarily, but some of their road charges are by odometer reading). a more precise means would be by GPS tracking, but people won't cop that.lturner wrote:The thing that is potentially dangerous is the act of driving
- Mulger bill
- Super Mod
- Posts: 29060
- Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
- Location: Sunbury Vic
Re: Bye bye AGF?
Postby Mulger bill » Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:56 pm
London Boy 29/12/2011
- drubie
- Posts: 4714
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 11:12 am
- Location: New England
- Contact:
Re: Bye bye AGF?
Postby drubie » Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:39 pm
Overall you'd be being compensated via lower insurance premiums and paying less tax via the various fuel excises, freedom from parking charges and speeding fines MB? I sure appreciate not getting slugged for that stuff when I don't drive. My take on it is that if you wanted a truly fair system that charged insurance via km driven, the process would be so invasive into your privacy that you would beg to go back to the old system of charging per motor vehicle. Sure it's a tradeoff, but the alternatives might not be attractive.Mulger bill wrote:All right, granted the CTP issue. But how is my smokebox parked securely in the driveway dangerous to anyone except for banging their shin on the towbar? It is the human element, ie "the nut holding the wheel" that makes the inanimate object dangerous. Left to its own devices, all it can do is rust.
Although (to get back on topic) why in the world the AGF foundation is even slightly involved in something that has nothing to do with safety is beyond me.
but really, that's rubbish. We get none of it because the choices are illusory.
- Mulger bill
- Super Mod
- Posts: 29060
- Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 2:41 pm
- Location: Sunbury Vic
Re: Bye bye AGF?
Postby Mulger bill » Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:18 pm
My opinion on levying CTP per vehicle not driver has been changed by reasoned argument. Don't faint, it can happen.
London Boy 29/12/2011
-
- Posts: 2631
- Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:36 pm
Re: Bye bye AGF?
Postby eeksll » Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:32 am
any chance you can provide a source for this. Its a handy fact to know ... in some argumentsrkelsen wrote:... the price of car registration doesn't cover the cost of administering it, right? Put simply, none of your car rego is used to fund anything outside the registration office itself. ...
- Kenzo
- Posts: 1680
- Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:13 am
- Location: Daisy Hill / Brisbane, Southside FTW
- Contact:
Bye bye AGF?
Postby Kenzo » Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:05 am
http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/petroltax.shtmleeksll wrote:any chance you can provide a source for this. Its a handy fact to know ... in some argumentsrkelsen wrote:... the price of car registration doesn't cover the cost of administering it, right? Put simply, none of your car rego is used to fund anything outside the registration office itself. ...
- trailgumby
- Posts: 15469
- Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:30 pm
- Location: Northern Beaches, Sydney
- Contact:
Re: Bye bye AGF?
Postby trailgumby » Sat Feb 11, 2012 10:11 am
Thanks. Excellent analysis.Kenzo wrote:http://www.ptua.org.au/myths/petroltax.shtmleeksll wrote:any chance you can provide a source for this. Its a handy fact to know ... in some argumentsrkelsen wrote:... the price of car registration doesn't cover the cost of administering it, right? Put simply, none of your car rego is used to fund anything outside the registration office itself. ...
-
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 8:10 pm
- Contact:
Re: Bye bye AGF?
Postby high_tea » Sat Feb 11, 2012 1:29 pm
The elephant in the room is that demanding rego for cyclists isn't really about funding or enforcement. It's about asserting the primacy of the private motor vehicle. The unstated premise for registering cyclists is this: motor vehicles are the only first-class users of the road. It is unacceptable that other vehicles should be able to use the roads on more favourable terms. That's what's behind the claim that it will somehow improve motorist/cyclist relations and so on.
It's a ridiculous premise and the problem is that people honestly think this, not that things don't match this worldview. Changing things to fit this misguided way of thinking won't fix the problem, only entrench it.
- il padrone
- Posts: 22931
- Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:57 pm
- Location: Heading for home.
Re: Bye bye AGF?
Postby il padrone » Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:05 pm
"An unjustified and unethical imposition on a healthy activity."
- PawPaw
- Posts: 1244
- Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 7:53 am
- Location: Brisbane
Re: Bye bye AGF?
Postby PawPaw » Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:08 pm
But this isn't perfect either. Some drivers are more dangerous than others. Maybe people who break the speed limit, run red lights, etc should face additional fines that fund CTP.
But then some would argue this would slug working class families who live more so on the outskirts of capital cities and face longer commutes, in addition to country folk.
OK, so then you provide a post code based subsidy (or premium), which already happens with car insurance.
Trying to make any govt provided service "fair" eventually becomes unfair, because you can get a bunch of lawyers and psychologists who will argue socioeconomic disadvantage feeds unfairness.
- Kenzo
- Posts: 1680
- Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 8:13 am
- Location: Daisy Hill / Brisbane, Southside FTW
- Contact:
Bye bye AGF?
Postby Kenzo » Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:46 pm
nice idea... Difficult to enforce as you could just buy your petrol elsewhere so more technology required .. but a nice idea in principle.PawPaw wrote:IMO, CTP can be more fairly apportioned by adding it to fuel cost.
But this isn't perfect either. Some drivers are more dangerous than others. Maybe people who break the speed limit, run red lights, etc should face additional fines that fund CTP.
But then some would argue this would slug working class families who live more so on the outskirts of capital cities and face longer commutes, in addition to country folk.
OK, so then you provide a post code based subsidy (or premium), which already happens with car insurance.
Return to “Cycling Safety and Advocacy”
- General Australian Cycling Topics
- Info / announcements
- Buying a bike / parts
- General Cycling Discussion
- The Bike Shed
- Cycling Health
- Cycling Safety and Advocacy
- Women's Cycling
- Bike & Gear Reviews
- Cycling Trade
- Stolen Bikes
- Bicycle FAQs
- Serious Biking
- Audax / Randonneuring
- Retro biking
- Commuting
- MTB
- Recumbents
- Fixed Gear/ Single Speed
- Track
- Electric Bicycles
- Cyclocross and Gravel Grinding
- Dragsters / Lowriders / Cruisers
- Children's Bikes
- Cargo Bikes and Utility Cycling
- Road Racing
- Road Biking
- Training
- Time Trial
- Triathlon
- International and National Tours and Events
- Cycle Touring
- Touring Australia
- Touring Overseas
- Touring Bikes and Equipment
- Australia
- Western Australia
- New South Wales
- Queensland
- South Australia
- Victoria
- ACT
- Tasmania
- Northern Territory
- Country & Regional
- The Market Place
- Member to Member Bike and Gear Sales
- Want to Buy, Group Buy, Swap
- My Bikes or Gear Elsewhere
- Cycling Brands
- Cannondale
- Garmin
- Giant
- Shimano
- Trek
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
- All times are UTC+11:00
- Top
- Delete cookies
About the Australian Cycling Forums
The Australian Cycling Forums is a welcoming community where you can ask questions and talk about the type of bikes and cycling topics you like.
Bicycles Network Australia
Forum Information
Connect with BNA
This website uses affiliate links to retail platforms including ebay, amazon, proviz and ribble.